Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

What was said to imply the long term trend was broken?

Maybe that's because you read too much into what is actually said???

Scientists cite the reduction in Arctic sea ice as a symptom of global warming (e.g., IPCC 2007; Richardson et al. 2009; Notz and Marotzke 2012). Outside the channels of scientific communication, individuals and organizations wishing to challenge the reality of global warming have sought to tell the Arctic ice story differently. For example, a widely publicized Heartland Institute report that downplays global-warming concerns (Idso and Singer 2009) does not include graphs resembling Figure 2. Instead, authors of this 2009 report cite a 1999 paper that used data just through 1998. Although the original 1999 researchers had noted a 14% decline in ice extent over 1978–1998, the Heartland Institute authors set this aside to emphasize a shorter time interval, writing that “it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward [to 1998], sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased” (p.155, emphasis by Idso and Singer). One has to look closely at the 1991 to 1998 interval in Figure 2, and ignore later years, to see the interannual variations that inspired this statement.

I responded to your points. Asked you questions, which you ignored.

How telling.

Guess away. You seem to do that a lot.

It is also safe to assume LARRY that scientist cite the reason for the 20 plus year trending INCREASE in Antarctic Sea Ice to the same.... Global Warming.
Correct.

Nice save there Hamilton.
Fact is the 20 year trend of Sea Ice Increase in the Antarctic is a reality.

I see. It's okay for you to take jabs at me, but unacceptable when I take jabs at you.

Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

Robert J. Brulle

Abstract

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over 900 million, with an annual average of 64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

trends suggest it would be warming whether or not there were humans

Fewer people will die from extreme cold.

Agricultural yields will increase, due to increased CO2

If you want to visit the Seychelles, book your trip sooner rather than later.

"Climate change"? No news there--the climate has always been changing....